Stan is using basic two line perceptions in this video. He has enough awareness of where the pocket would be to choose one of two objective visuals. Not overly hard to do but in all honesty i would probably rattle a few of them.
Stan's Perception Curtain Video - My Version
- Thread starter Dan White
- Start date
Stan is using basic two line perceptions in this video. He has enough awareness of where the pocket would be to choose one of two objective visuals. Not overly hard to do but in all honesty i would probably rattle a few of them.
At this point I think my best advice is that if you buy the DVD and you make the mistake of pointing out to the instructor that his directions are inscrutable be prepared for the sh*t storm that is going to come down on your head.
"Getting" CTE is much like "getting" a pure straight stroke. Try shooting a long straight in shot and draw the ball back into the pocket under you. Now take a beginner and teach them this stroke. Nothing is going to get them there outside of time at the table. Body mechanics and perception must be learned. I think CTE falls into this category. It is different, and the perception must be learned. The quickest way to understand CTE is go to the table and shoot the shots from the DVDs. Just follow the instruction, even if everything is not clear at first. Slowly and surely it will all make sense. That is what it took me. The first time I watched the dvd I was a bit perplexed. But time at the table brought it all around.
I am going to disagree with you here. I think if you had a way to completely block off all visual contact with the rails the perceptions would still work because the pockets are still in the same place.
This can be adequately shown in both the five way shot with two curtains blocking the rails to be struck and the banking video where Stan cannot see the rail to be struck.
I firmly believe if Stan - or any proficient CTE user - were blindfolded and a shot set up where they could only see the balls that if told to shoot it in the lower left corner they would line up correctly. I do think that the rails and pockets certainly help but only because we as shooters are so used to using them consciously and subconsciously.
Last night when shooting the five shot-same perception example I had truly no idea if the last two shots were aimed right. I simply followed the directions having never tried those particular shots with that perception and they went right in. Which just goes to show that just because we know the system doesn't mean we know which keys work with every shot until we try those shots and figure out which ones work.
But if you bought the video the opposite is TRUE. Stan is very open to helping you understand. You can send emails, have a phone conversation.
PS you see what happens on here. He's taken this shit for about 10 yrs. Do you really believe he should continue to answer questions from people trying to discredit him that haven't even properly learned the system
Curtain shots......With CTE it is all about being on a regulation 2x1 table....there are 8 right angles that can be specifically defined.....
The CB OB positions are ALWAYS at 15 30 or 45 degree relation to the right angles or the pockets.
Once I know the system.....my only requirement is to be able to see enough of the table to recognize how any CB OB sets in relation to the pockets ........all I need is general knowledge of where the right angles are......the system knows exactly where they are located......
Stan Shuffett
The CB OB positions are ALWAYS at 15 30 or 45 degree relation to the right angles or the pockets.
Once I know the system.....my only requirement is to be able to see enough of the table to recognize how any CB OB sets in relation to the pockets ........all I need is general knowledge of where the right angles are......the system knows exactly where they are located......
Stan Shuffett
Well we can disagree and I'm fine with that. Think of this for a moment. Say you were able to setup a curtain circle on the middle of the table, place the two balls in that circle and line up your perception. No rails or pockets in view. Now, rotate the table beneath you. Nothing changed visually, but the pockets moved. You think it still works? I think rail orientation is necessary.
I'm sure in person things would be a lot different, it easy to say the wrong things here.
As for Stan its not that I dislike him, just don't believe his system is as described .
Well first of all you didn't buy the DVD. Secondly before I will ARGUE with an instructor I will do everything possible to NICELY try to understand what he is saying. Language is also a matter of perspective and experience.
When dealing with the Indian software developers we often have overly long conversations about what we MEAN because they don't speak english with the same experience and cultural references as I do.
Stan has his way of explaining CTE that is developed from his own experience and search for the right words to describe what he sees on the table. Just because YOU can get it doesn't mean he is wrong. And just because he won't cater to YOU doesn't mean you deserve to be catered to.
You're not a sincere student here. You don't have the grounding that many of us have. Yet you all but demand to be given the foundation on your terms. I guess you are not capable of seeing the hubris in that.
When I want to learn something I will supplicate myself in front of the instructor and shut the hell up to absorb all that he has to teach me. Then I will try very hard to understand the lessons, asking for help where I get stuck. It will be a LONG time before I would ever dream of insulting the instructor and challenging him by calling his methods into question. Of course not every instructor is good or right but the point is that the student who is an empty cup is a better student than one who comes with a cup already full.
So yeah, you will get nowhere with the attitude that you can't understand the instructions and therefore it's the instructor's fault when other people clearly get it because they have a foundation that you won't bother to learn.
If you call it a shit storm it's because of shit you made coming back on you.
There are a lot of ridiculous claims about cte.
There are a lot of outlandish claims that anyone with common sense can tell are not true.
"Takes one to the correct shot line everytime"
"No subconscious adjustment and the proof is that it only works on a 2x1 surface"
"I recognize that so and so uses the system"
Then there are the claims that this pro or that pro has confessed to using the system when in fact they don't.
If the pockets moved then of course it wouldn't work. That applies to any method of aiming.
I think that the player has to know where they are in relation to the table at least. But one thing is for sure, if the player didn't know the pockets moved then the shot would be aimed directly at where the pocket is supposed to be.
How is this possible? Are you saying that every CB OB alignment is at a 15, 30 or 45 degree angle relative to the pockets? I'm pretty sure that isn't what you are getting at. Are you saying that your CTE visuals are at those angles even though the ball alignment may not be?
Mohrt a little help?
Let's start with the pros? What pros were said to have confessed to using CTE and don't? I don't recall this ever being said.
So far CTE, used properly, does take the shooter to the correct shot line every time.
There is no subconscious adjustment that CTE users have ever been able to identify. No one who claims there is has ever been able to show it either. They use "subconscious adjustment" as some sort of catch-all explanation for why CTE works so well.
Works only on a 2x1 surface - Stan says this and his reasons are that per his experience (and demonstration) CTE aimed shots always track to a pocket somewhere. So conversely the same aimed shots could not track to the same six pockets if the dimensions were different. Basically CTE works inside a square and so it's conceivable to me that it would work inside any number of adjacently tiled squares in some form. But as far as pool goes Stan's assertion is likely spot on but ultimately not even necessary to use it. It's simply an observation which has no bearing on the practical use of the method.
Any time you find yourself in OKC come to the shop and I will gladly go over each claim with you. On the table we can decide together whether you find truth in them or not.
No one who uses CTE is lying to you though. Not deliberately. And we are certainly not editing videos to fool anyone.
That is the visual nature of CTE......I did a table connection study and presentation in DVD 2.....Hal Houle declared this in his 3 angle document nearly 20 years ago. ..He learned the connections over 50 years ago........I have YouTube videos that elude to this quite well.
This is the initial aiming aspect of CTE........
Stan Shuffett
Thing is Dan is putting words in people's mouths. No one ever said CTE is magical nor did they say it makes a weak player into a champion.
Dan seems to think that the curtain demos are some kind of trick to entice people to buy into CTE. They aren't. They are done to demonstrate what type of capability comes with CTE.
Dan says, well look I can do this and I don't know CTE so therefore don't be fooled into thinking that this is only possible with CTE. Again no one ever said or implied that it's only possible with CTE.
But then Dan FAILS to acknowledge that Stan and others have curtain videos where they throw out balls at random and make them. That he didn't do or try to do on video. Instead what he did do is practice the set up shots and go through who know how many takes before getting three of them to go in.
So therefore I call BS on what Dan says was his intention.
You didn't actually just say anything, with all due respect. I will assume that it is explained in DVD 2.
Oh, and you've made a classic freudian slip (see bold). I'm sorry but it was funny and I hope you can laugh at yourself a little. The word you typed too quickly is "allude." Looks like something PJ would have typed.
Well, except for the parts you can't explain in English - starting about where the fractional alignments end.
You mean instead of the real reasons like "the visual", "3D perception", "rotating edges", "aiming from another dimension", etc.?
lol
pj
chgo
I just answered my own question about the curtains and perceptions. At least one pocket must be in view to obtain the CB/OB relationship with the 90 degree angles between the pockets. From that information, you can find the correct perceptions for a given CB/OB orientation.
Regarding the 15/30/45 relationship, think of this for a moment. Take an object ball and throw it out on the table. Now, start drawing lines to pockets, including bank shots. What do these lines have in common? They are all 15, 30, 45 degree angles [edit: perceptions, not discreet angles] in relationship to each other. A CTE perception combined with a pivot usually provides the solution to one of the pockets. I say usually because sometimes a perception does not lead to a practical shot, and some shots will not always have a CTE solution. I believe that Stan has stated that the 15 degree perception always leads to a pocket. Not always the intended pocket, but a pocket nonetheless.
[edit] it is the 15/30/45 degree perceptions that lead to the pockets, not the mathematical angles.
[edit] it is the 15/30/45 degree perceptions that lead to the pockets, not the mathematical angles.
Last edited: